MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021029751 · doi:10.5558/tfc2011-006

Ecology and Traits of Plant Species that Compete with Boreal and Temperate Forest Conifers: An Overview of Available Information and its Use in Forest Management in Canada

2011· article· en· W2021029751 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Frederick W. Bell, Maureen Kershaw, Isabelle Aubin, Nelson Thiffault, Jennifer Dacosta, Alan Wiensczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)Natural Resources CanadaLakehead UniversityOntario Forest Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorealTemperate climateTaigaEcologyTemperate rainforestResource (disambiguation)Vegetation (pathology)AgroforestryForest managementTemperate forestRegeneration (biology)GeographyBiologyEnvironmental resource managementEcosystemEnvironmental scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In boreal and temperate forests in Canada, at least 71 plant species, including trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, and ferns, have the potential to significantly reduce the growth of conifer regeneration. A thorough understanding of the autecology of these plants—their response to their environment—can help resource managers to improve their approaches to vegetation management, thereby maximizing crop tree growth and survival. In this paper, we highlight key sources of information about the autecology of the major species that compete with forest conifers, including books and field guides, journal series, Web sites, and plant trait databases. We suggest ways that this information can be applied in resource management, recommend approaches for maintaining and updating this information, and underline the needs for developing a single, consolidated, comprehensive source of such information for use by resource managers and researchers. Information gaps are also briefly discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207